Santos Ramirez Portillo v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 7 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SANTOS ANIBAL RAMIREZ PORTILLO, No. 15-70854 Petitioner, Agency No. A094-320-908 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 5, 2017** San Francisco, California Before: OWENS and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and BUCKLO,*** District Judge. Santos Anibal Ramirez-Portillo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming a * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation. decision by an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his motion to terminate, finding that he was removable, and denying his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition. 1. We review the agency’s findings of fact for substantial evidence. See, e.g., Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 2009). Under this standard of review, we cannot reverse the agency’s findings unless the alien presents evidence that “not only supports that conclusion, but compels it.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992). Ramirez-Portillo has not presented such evidence in relation to the factual findings underlying the determination that he was removable as charged. Although the transcript is unclear at times, it does not compel a finding that Ramirez-Portillo did not concede his removability, and the IJ’s notes also support the conclusion that he conceded removability. Further, Ramirez-Portillo’s argument that the BIA erred by relying on evidence in the record to support its conclusion that he was removable is not persuasive, because that evidence was in the record at the time the IJ made the same finding. This evidence also supports the finding that he was removable. We therefore deny his petition for review of this claim. 1 Ramirez-Portillo has petitioned only for review of his application for protection under CAT. We therefore treat his asylum and withholding of removal claims as waived. 2 2. We have jurisdiction to review an appeal from the BIA only if an alien “has exhausted all administrative remedies available to [him or her] as of right.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Although a “notice of appeal [may] serve[] in lieu of a brief,” Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (per curiam), “a general challenge to the IJ’s decision” is insufficient to exhaust a claim, Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir. 2004). Rather, the alien “must specify which issues form the basis of the appeal” to the BIA. ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals